header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

7 May 2009

Neil Parpworth presents the case for fixed-term Parliaments

The Parliament Act 1911 provides that the life of a Westminster Parliament is limited to five years. In effect, therefore, in the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension, there must be a general election within five years of the previous election. Thus, unlike the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Westminster Parliament does not sit for fixed terms. A general election may be called as and when the prime minister of the day desires, provided that the monarch agrees that Parliament be dissolved using her power under the royal prerogative. The political advantage which accrues to the party in government is therefore obvious and considerable.

POWER TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT

Had Gordon Brown asked the Queen to grant a dissolution last month, it is certain that she would have done as she was bid. To justify an election, Brown might have argued that, as a relatively new prime minister, it was important that his government obtained its own mandate from the electorate rather

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll